You’re batting 1000 Dr_manhattan
spot on, again no arguments here.
1 Like
also true, yet conservatives shoulder the blame
You keep confusing party with ideology. Progressiveness is an ideology. Progressiveness is for progress. No matter how party affiliations change over time… ideology is what drives policy.
Conservatives didn’t not want slaves to be freed. They wanted to “conservative” the status quo.
You used a lot of big words but didn’t say anything. Explain how any of those things are true. I’m not saying you are wrong, I am saying you have presented a case for your assertions.
Seriously?
Progressive is for progress and conservative is for the status quo??? Really???
You truly are in way over your head. 
1 Like
The concept of “progressivism” was not yet conceived until somewhere within the mid to late 1920’s. It originated and was spawned from the Troskyites who were mostly influenced by the Post modernist movement that were incorporating elements of Karl Marx’s teachings of communism into their wanton indoctrination. Ricard Rorty who was one of America’s institutional philosophers was heavily influenced by this movement that he would later classify it as “Pragmatism within a democratic political discourse” where he coined the phrase “Wealth redistribution” Where did you hear that one before? It seems the Progressives of today are not of original ideas but repeating the ones that were conceived by known Marxists who help founded the Frankfurt institute and other post modernist philosophers who by all measures were well known Marxists in their early beginnings.
no, because ideology is what matters, you just did the same thing with conservatives, yes originally conservatives was for conserving the status quo, but you also forget , conservatism/right wing also stands for individualism and their pursuits, we are not afraid of progress as long as it enhances, not changing things that benefits the minority at the expense of the majority.
Eg, the transgender movement, or accept radical islam at the expense of non islam or even moderate muslim who cherishes being here.
As in Conservatives did not want slaves to be free, Im sure some didn’t, but you forget why the republican party was first formed and who joined it, yes Lincoln was originally against freeing slaves as he was interested only in saving the Union
but something happened during the Civil war that changed his mind, and probably the reason that got him shot
Hahahahaha. Take a “peek” at the definitions
pro·gres·sive
/prəˈɡresiv/
adjective
happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
“a progressive decline in popularity”
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, intensifying, accelerating, escalating;More
(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
“a relatively progressive governor”
con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsərvədiv/
adjective
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, stable, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, unchanging, hidebound;More
noun
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
synonyms: right-winger, reactionary, rightist, diehard; More
You were saying?
and liberal used to mean " for liberty" remember liberty something that conservatives today strive for.
hence the term neo liberalism or classical liberalism
today its the opposite
2 Likes
Yes you are correct about the origin of the word “Liberal”. It was hijacked by the Democratic Party, when, I am not sure, but the true meaning of Liberal or Liberalism was more in line with conservative in the values they hold dear! Individual Freedoms and Liberty with very limited government. I believe it goes way back to when we were fighting for our independence from Britain the term “Liberal” became widely referenced by those who were seeking their own freedoms from tyranny.
Ive read the last few dr manhattan posts and I cant see where he was wrong or said something out of line, he presented a pretty good argument and salient points.
The problem isnt his delivery, the problem is you cannot accept that, because it goes against your narrative.
Its like me at a family gathering and some of them loves Obama and think he was the greatest thing since draft beer in a keg, they try and explain to me why he is so wonderful and then gets angry with me because I don’t agree and present facts to counter their claim
Now is it me that doesn’t understand why Obama isn’t great, or is it that I don’t accept their reason why they believe Obama is great
Which I dont believe one bit that Obama is great, but Im getting off topic
1 Like
I haven’t taken a highly partisan position. My narrative is that conservatives balance liberals. Period. Neither is inherently bad. It’s a check and balance. Too much in either direction could cause serious damage.
And I asked you Pragmatic, where is the too much conservatism and I believe I threw in Unfettered capitalism too.
When was this an issue?
And I gave you examples…
Cons were on the opposite side of the emancipation proclaimation
Cons were on the opposite side of woman suffrage movement
Cons were instrumental in Jim Crow
Cons were on the opposite side of The 1960 Vivian rights movement
Cons were on the opposite side of interracial marriage
Cons were on the opposite side of gay rights
Cons were on the opposite side of title 9.
Cons were on the opposite side of brown v board of education
Cons were on the opposite side of roe v wade
Cons were on the side of prohibition
I can go oooooooon.
Progressives movement that are determinal seem to be the climate change issues. This is were progressive can go to far and damage a lot for a minimal gain. Cons need to check them on this debate, but not deny science while doing it.
false,you are saying that Conservatives voted for the Democrats back then? dude this is what separated the Whig party and the newly formed Republican party
say what???
Ummmmm, The Democrat party is responsible for slavery, Jim crow and segregation
there are or were no conservatives, even if you go by the original meaning of conservative as conserving the status quo, most of them voted Democrat
The rest of it just nonsense but I want to address the prohibition who was behind Prohibition?
No, I didn’t infer it. I did suggest some solutions that you label ‘big government’. But I specifically wondered why Tucker DIDN’T suggest them.
You keep confusing party with ideology. Until you unconfuse those 2 things. Nothing will make sense.
The republican PARTY was progressive until the civil rights act of 1965. Then the Republican Party turn conservative, while the Democrat party turned progressive.
again, progressive and progress isn’t the same thing, you are confusing ideology with party.
just like Crony capitalism and laissez faire are not the same thing
Marxism and communism are not the same thing
Cactus wren and cactus are not the same thing.
I hope you get the gist of what Im saying.
If you go by the original definition of Conservative, then they could have affiliations with both parties.
There were people in the Republican party that didn’t free slaves, and there were a few in the Democrat party that did want to free slaves so are they progressive?
if you accept that the term “liberalism” has changed over time, why cant you accept that "conservatism " changed over time as well
Because they have changed
You cant compare Modern Conservatism to yesteryear conservatism ( the exception when it comes to the constitution)
just like I cannot compare modern liberalism to the liberalism of yesteryear.
Progressivism is the only constant as they didn’t believe in the American constitution or the Declaration of independence, the electoral college and such because they believe it is antiquated, where conservatives yesteryear and today believe in the constitution and such, they just happened to be today’s republican ( well not all of them, but most of them)
Here is the problem, higher wages typically means the private sector producing good paying jobs, good paying jobs means jobs that require some degree of education, training, and or certification. Which means there will logically be less and less jobs that don’t require importing millions of people from Central and South America, which most Democrats want.
Regarding Unions, one of the biggest reasons for their decline was due to the decline of factory jobs, which was the result of technology and globalization. Not likely going to see a resurgence of factory and manufacturing jobs. Also unions did not do themselves any favors by being so overtly political.
Also I can’t help but to chuckle when hearing a progressive talk about how we need to go back to the past. It’s the left that has contempt for that time and the traditional family.
When you say “progressiveness” I associate it with all I disagree with:
One example: Transgenders having access to women’s bathrooms.
However, if you define “progressiveness” as, say for example school vouchers where a parent can choose the school they feel is best for their child then I am all on board.
THAT type of progression, because it encompasses freedom of choice, independent thinking and personal responsibility I can and will support.